To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: Washington should not limit or restrict our advice and retirement saving choices

Re: Washington should not limit or restrict our advice and retirement saving choices

Dear Department of Labor,

I am a constituent and I am a proud employee of Lincoln Financial. I want to make you aware of 

my concern regarding a proposal the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) is considering that could 

have a detrimental impact on one of the most important functions of our company: providing 

retirement savings products to help consumers save for retirement and build a stream of 

guaranteed retirement income so that they do not outlive their assets. As you are likely aware, 

the DOL is making changes to the way financial advisors can interact with and provide 

retirement savings and investment advice to people who have retirement plans and IRAs. 

Today, it is not easy for Americans to achieve a financially secure retirement and policymakers 

should actively be promoting proposals that make it easier to do so, particularly as wages have 

stagnated, Social Security covers less and less of retirees’ expenses, and traditional pensions are 

no longer as common. Along those lines, products with lifetime income guarantees – which 

essentially provide a “paycheck for life” similar to how a traditional pension did for previous 

generations of retirees - have never been more vital for helping consumers achieve their 

retirement objectives. 

This critically important income stream is frequently delivered through variable annuities. 

Variable annuities offer a wide variety of guarantees to protect a retirement saver’s investment -

from a living benefit to protect against longevity risk to death benefits that provide principal 

protection in the event a retirement saver dies during a market downturn. The unique benefits of 

variable annuities are squarely in line with the Department’s desire to ensure that Americans 

have access to guaranteed lifetime income in retirement. 

Unfortunately, the proposed rule is currently flawed and would strip Americans of their ability to 

work with a financial advisor to take advantage of these types of benefits. The one-size-fits-all 

changes proposed, most notably to advisor compensation structures, would make it harder for 

middle class Americans to set up retirement savings accounts, raise fees on individuals seeking 

retirement advice, and severely limit their ability to choose both the advisor they want to work 

with and the products available. Simply put, the proposed rule clearly does not reflect an 

appreciation for how annuities, and the guaranteed long term protection they provide, differ from 

investment products like stocks, bonds, and mutual fund IRAs. One size fits all sounds 

appealing, but it just does not work and will result in savers paying more, and receiving less in 

return.

Our industry fully supports the effort to strengthen consumer protections. However, in the push 

to do so, we must be certain regulations are not imposed that would limit access or drive up costs 

for vital retirement planning products, particularly those that provide guaranteed lifetime 

income. As both a professional in the retirement planning industry and an everyday consumer, I 

strongly urge you to reach out to Secretary Perez to reevaluate this rule to make certain it 
protects investors while preserving access to retirement assistance, products and services for all 

individuals.

Sincerely, 

Prepared by One Click Politics(tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. For information regarding this service, please 

contact admin@oneclickpolitics.com
To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: Washington should not limit or restrict advice & retirement saving choices

Re: Washington should not limit or restrict advice & retirement saving choices

Dear Department of Labor,

I am a constituent and licensed financial advisor residing in your district. I want to make you 

aware of my opposition to the proposed rule from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) that will 

be detrimental to the US retirement saver and my ability to help consumers save for retirement 

and build a stream of retirement income so that they do not outlive their assets. I agree with the 

DOL that providing high value products at the lowest possible price to provide for a secure 

retirement is absolutely critical. I have always served in the best interests of my clients, through 

financial planning and the implementation of that plan, and the current proposal will limit 

consumer choice and my ability to provide advice accordingly.

I am requesting that you oppose the rule in its present form and work with the DOL to change it. 

The one-size-fits-all changes proposed, most notably its bias against commission-based 

compensation for financial advice, would make it harder for middle class Americans to set up 

retirement savings accounts, raise fees on individuals seeking retirement advice, and severely 

limit their ability to choose both the advisor they want to work with and the products available. 

“One size fits all” sounds appealing, but it just does not work and will result in savers paying 

more, and receiving less in return.

Please help ensure that hard working middle class Americans have choice and access to advice 

and solutions that best fit their needs. The DOL proposal must be changed to reflect that:

• Investors should have the right to seek comprehensive financial planning and advice on 

their terms and not be required to engage in a fee-based relationship to do so.

• Limiting choice for services and product solutions will make it harder for middle-class 

Americans to find retirement products to help solve for income beyond their working years.

• Investing in human advice means personalized time understanding objectives, needs, risk 

tolerance, but also providing the financial education and emotional support to help consumers 

take control of their retirement plans and financial lives.

• Compensation for each investment should be evaluated based on a variety of factors and 

how a consumer pays for their products, solutions, investments and advice should be a matter of 

choice.

• The excessive disclosure problem that already exists will not get better by adding more 

disclosures and complexities for consumers.

I fully support the effort to strengthen consumer protections. However, in the push to do so, we 

must be certain regulations are not imposed that would limit access or drive up costs for vital

retirement planning products, particularly those that provide guaranteed lifetime income. As 
both a professional in the retirement planning industry and an everyday consumer, I strongly 

urge you to reach out to Secretary Perez to reevaluate this rule to make certain it protects 

investors, while preserving access to personalized retirement assistance, products and services 

for all individuals.

Sincerely, 

Prepared by One Click Politics(tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. For information regarding this service, please 

contact admin@oneclickpolitics.com 
To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: Washington should not limit or restrict advice and retirement saving choices

Re: Washington should not limit or restrict advice and retirement saving choices

Dear Department of Labor,

As a constituent of your district and an American actively trying to make sure I have enough 

money for retirement, I want to make you aware of my concern regarding the U.S. Department 

of Labor (DOL) proposal regarding advice, choice and retirement savings. While the rule’s 

intention of putting my interests first is good, it will unfortunately wind up costing me more and 

limiting my choices. Specifically, the DOL is making changes to the way financial advisors can 

interact with and provide retirement savings and investment advice to people like me who want 

to save for a dignified lifestyle in retirement 

I am requesting that you oppose this rule and work with the DOL and amend it so that it truly is 

in the best interest of all retirement savers. As you know, Americans increasingly are 

responsible for their own financial planning and retirement savings. Pension plans have faded 

away and Social Security is an uncertainty. To make the most of all my options, I prefer and rely 

on advice from my financial advisor in developing a financial plan to meet my goals for a secure 

retirement. This requires my advisor providing educational resources and personalized retirement 

planning advice. Under the DOL’s fiduciary proposal, however, I may only be able to receive 

that advice if I pay a fee, in the same way that more affluent financial services customers pay for 

financial consultation. The DOL rule would severely limit what advice, products, and financial 

outcomes I could access – please don’t allow the DOL to regulate away my plans for retirement 

security.

The changes proposed, most notably to advisor compensation structures, would make it harder 

for middle class Americans to set up retirement savings accounts, receive guaranteed income for 

life, cost significantly more, and severely limit my ability to choose both the advisor I want to 

work with and the products available.

The DOL’s goal to strengthen consumer protections is certainly a worthy one. However, in the 

push to do so, we must be certain regulations are not imposed that have the unintended 

consequences of limiting access or driving up costs for vital retirement planning products, 

particularly those that provide guaranteed lifetime income. I strongly urge you to reach out to 

Secretary Perez and ask him to reevaluate this rule to make certain it protects investors while 

preserving access to retirement assistance, products and services for all individuals.

Sincerely, 

Prepared by One Click Politics(tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. For information regarding this service, please 

contact admin@oneclickpolitics.com